The prior art is replete with novel means to manage electrical cords and other lengthy flexible materials such as hoses and cables. Except for necessarily complex systems for industrial applications, such as the structure taught in U.S. Pat. No. 3,840,713, issued to Carpentier, a vast number of these devices are overly elaborate structures which, on their faces, appear to be clever and effective solutions to the age-old problem of cord management. Exemplary of the prior art of this category are U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,952,420 issued to Von Hoorn; U.S. Pat. No. 4,390,142 issued to Cheng; and, U.S. Pat. No. 5,992,787, issued to Burke; and, U.S. Pat. No. 7,984,798 B1, issued to Hall.
Unfortunately, these devices require many stages and operations in their manufacture, resulting in great expense for the manufacturer in materials, tooling, and labor, the added costs of which are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. In addition, these devices sacrifice simplicity of structure and operation to produce their questionable advantages. For instance, it is a characteristic of this class of cord managing devices to fold, or bend, the cord sharply in order to make it comply with the requirements of the device. In the case of cords that carry electrical current, this is extremely bad practice and can lead to overheating, failure of the cord, and, in worst-case scenarios, fire and electrocution. However, operationally, there is another major disadvantage in these devices: the electrical cord is captured within them and must remain encumbered by the device at all times. Only in the extreme situation would it be advantageous for the operator to fully remove the cord from the device for unrestricted use.
Another disadvantage of devices of this class of prior art is complete disengagement of the cord from the device requires the performance of a number of annoying, and time consuming, manipulations.
There are, however, other prior art devices that are more elegant in their simplicity and more straightforward in their functionality. Devices of this class of cord management tools are typified by their low costs of manufacture and general ease of use. Examples include U.S. Pat. No. Des. 314,910, issued to VanSkiver; U.S. Pat. No. Des. 359,440, issued to Stewart; and, U.S. Pat. No. Des. 408,720, issued to Sheng. Each of the first two patents features two means for fastening an end of an electrical cord to the device for winding upon a hub: a hook to capture an end of the cord, located within the cord winding area next to the hub and one, or more, keyhole-shaped receptacles let into a side plate of the device for retaining a cord end. These devices exemplify simplicity and general usefulness and are the basis upon which the present invention is an improvement. However, these prior art devices also have disadvantages which will be discussed later in this specification.